GM Inside News Forum banner
21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,048 Posts
Maybe there should be two...

Bentley-level car with competitive/superior horsepower

Veyron-killer? Just for attention... It'd be a really low volume car in the 850k price range like mgescuro suggested. Just to break records and get a name out. Personally I've never heard of a Bugatti until the Veyron. I know it was revived specifically for it, but it's all the same. It's an insane car that garnered a lot of attention. It'd also be good for marketing, beating the Bugatti. It's also appease the Sixteen fanboyz. Use the 1300HP engine you suggested. 2 seater coupe. AWD.

They don't need old nameplates. Seville/Deville are dad cars. My dad's had both. They were great, but I would never want a dad car. My dad's also had S-classes. Those aren't dad cars. Eldorado is a tired nameplate. It wouldn't fly as well as a new one. It's not something that means anything to most young people, and quite frankly the name is too clunky. Ciel is a much more beautiful name. It's a new age for Cadillac. Cadillac is finally taking off, why drag it down with old baggage?
Agree on the names. Why drag old, tired names and plop them on beautiful, 21st Century Automobiles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,260 Posts
sfbreh, as partial as I must admit I am to the DeVille/etc nameplates, I too much say I've come around to that thinking. To note, I'm 26. I can see those names making returns possibly in the future as a nod to the past. But right now? Agreed. Need to go with something that would better fit the younger crowd Cadillac HAS to bring in to succeed and prosper now and into the future. In a few decades, who knows... our kids will probably be saying that about the "CTS" or "Ciel"... lol
Maybe on a future concept, I don't think a production model would really work with a nameplate like the old ones. Also, for the record, I'm 19. CTS probably not. Letters don't really age. They can be soiled or tainted, like BTS or DTS, but Ciel can definitely age. I think it would age very well, though.

First and foremost, Cadillac MUST get their flagship out on the roads. They've suffered for far too long without one.

Once Omega is out, then Cadillac needs to flesh out the flagship lineup -- Coupe and potentially a convertible and CUV.
This goes without saying. Personally, I don't think there's any question about needing a 4 door convertible...

After that point, the Cadillac needs to focus on the Super sedan -- a Flying Spur and possibly Ghost competitor and possible Pullman (depending on where Mercedes decides to align it in their lineup). This can sit on Omega or Omega+. This should be a no-excuses full-sized sedan and full-sized extended sedan.
I think this comes last, actually. Maybach didn't do too well and I think the supercar would be a bigger hit.

A supercar? It might sound frivolous, but what luxury brand DOESN'T have one?? Audi has R8. Mercedes has SLS. Lexus has LF-A. Jaguar has C-X75 coming. Porsche has 918 coming. And BMW has i8 coming.
It's not frivolous in any way. The V series is great, but it needs an anchor. I don't mean the CTS-V coupe or anything. I think a car like the SLS, built entirely by the performance division, would really allow Cadillac to flex its muscles and show off its performance prowess.

Cadillac needs one without a doubt. A modernized Cien is what is needed -- in the 500-800HP range. The thing is, these supercars are either hybrids or electrics or offer a hybrid/electric version. Cadillac will need at least a performance oriented Voltec to play in this arena. And guess what, this car will probably supplant Corvette as the performance benchmark for GM.
It definitely needs to be a technological masterpiece. I don't think it should be a benchmark, it should be more like a real halo. The level of performance should far exceed a benchmark. I think the 4 door convertible should represent the brand, but a Veyron-shredding monster would give Cadillac real credibility and desirability, especially among a much higher echelon of customers. It has to stand out, though. It can't be second best. It has to be first. It has to have the media pine for it. I remember watching some very uncharacteristic segment on the news in which they featured the Veyron a while back.

These cars aren't really "nice to haves" at this point. They're a necessity.
Very well put.

As for the names? An argument can be made for and against them. I understand why the letters can be more successful globally. The problem with Cadillac is that they aren't consistent with the letters. And they need numbers. personally, I wouldn't complain if the names made a reappearance in the lineup. And if only 1 name reappeared, my vote is for "Eldorado."
Of the names, I think Eldorado is probably the best, but if anything had to be brought back from the past, I'd go for the "Series" cars. The Series 62, 70, etc would be good I think as trim levels maybe.

Agree on the names. Why drag old, tired names and plop them on beautiful, 21st Century Automobiles.
Thank you! Leave the old names on the beautiful old cars. Let new names grace the beautiful new cars.

Also, this is what the doors need:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Updated prices and some features.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,892 Posts
ATS: Add coupe, convertible and wagon (ELR is unnecessary, the ATS can be offered with Voltec)
CTS: As-is but moved more upscale in luxury trim add convertible
XTS: Moved to RWD platform add coupe and convertible
STS: RWD Flagship add coupe and convertible
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
As for resurecting old Cadillac names...
It would be wise to avoid using any old moniker except for Fleetwood and Biarritz. Every other old Caddy name reeks of some tacky 1970s Southern California condo complex. Avoid with all diligence.

In addition to features not found on other cars, there are other parameters that should be in place for a future lineup. An absolute bottom limit of $55,000 should be a benchmark (and $55 k is a stretch in my book). There should be no small Cadillacs. I don't give a rat's ____ how many other luxury brands are making them; THERE SHOULD BE NO SMALL CADILLACS. If GM wanted a premium small car brand, it should have kept Saab (in my opinion, the greatest single argument for keeping the Swedish brand.) The current CTS is about as small as any Cadillac should be. Cadillac should not only represent unparalleled luxury, but should have the space and presence required of a luxury car. Sell Cadillacs to unabashed luxury customers, not eco-fanatics too stupid to realize that ANY CAR (electric, hybrid, or running on cat chow) is bad for the environment. "Eco luxury" is a sick joke. Let some Eurotrash brand flog that stupid idea (like "Carbon Tax") and keep it out of Cadillac showrooms.

Thus...

$55,000 "small" sedan
$75,000-$100,000 "large" sedan
$150,000 plutocratmobile
$100,000 roadster
$100,000 large coupe/convertible

... and GMC, not Cadillac, should be selling GM's expensive SUV's. I don't care how many well-heeled buyers opt for SUV's, they're vulgar and tacky and have no place in a Cadillac showroom.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
... and GMC, not Cadillac, should be selling GM's expensive SUV's. I don't care how many well-heeled buyers opt for SUV's, they're vulgar and tacky and have no place in a Cadillac showroom.
Cadillac the brand- at any point in time, not just disco era and beyond- is vulgar and tacky.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,632 Posts
One could argue the Riviera is vulgar and tacky, too.
:)

I'm sure Buick was tacky at various points in time, too. But I'm not too tied to automotive history, the future attracts me. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like Buick is going there the way I once hoped.

My take has always been that "true luxury" is vulgar and tacky in all forms. Now I'm realizing its probably "luxury I can't reasonably ever attain", that I whitewash luxury I can attain into the category "premium", and that others probably think I fit what I rail against. Upper-middle-class class warfare sandwich yeah. Time to reevaluate myself.

I'll give that Cadillac in the 60's is probably not vulgar. Maybe.

Back up a few posts, I absolutely love the various forms of angst that SUVs and crossovers generate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,260 Posts
As for resurecting old Cadillac names...
It would be wise to avoid using any old moniker except for Fleetwood and Biarritz. Every other old Caddy name reeks of some tacky 1970s Southern California condo complex. Avoid with all diligence.

In addition to features not found on other cars, there are other parameters that should be in place for a future lineup. An absolute bottom limit of $55,000 should be a benchmark (and $55 k is a stretch in my book). There should be no small Cadillacs. I don't give a rat's ____ how many other luxury brands are making them; THERE SHOULD BE NO SMALL CADILLACS. If GM wanted a premium small car brand, it should have kept Saab (in my opinion, the greatest single argument for keeping the Swedish brand.) The current CTS is about as small as any Cadillac should be. Cadillac should not only represent unparalleled luxury, but should have the space and presence required of a luxury car. Sell Cadillacs to unabashed luxury customers, not eco-fanatics too stupid to realize that ANY CAR (electric, hybrid, or running on cat chow) is bad for the environment. "Eco luxury" is a sick joke. Let some Eurotrash brand flog that stupid idea (like "Carbon Tax") and keep it out of Cadillac showrooms.

Thus...

$55,000 "small" sedan
$75,000-$100,000 "large" sedan
$150,000 plutocratmobile
$100,000 roadster
$100,000 large coupe/convertible

... and GMC, not Cadillac, should be selling GM's expensive SUV's. I don't care how many well-heeled buyers opt for SUV's, they're vulgar and tacky and have no place in a Cadillac showroom.
Cadillac needs advanced propulsion systems to maintain a technological edge and an air of technological sophistication. I do think that GM should develop a clean V8 for Cadillac. V8 performance at V6 emissions and economy sounds excellent to me. I'm no ecofreak, but I do want fuel economy. To be the most fuel efficient luxury make with powerful engines would really be something, in my opinion. There's also the whole CAFE issue...

Cadillac also needs to compete with the Germans. Model for model, no, but in the major segments? Yes. The ATS can be what a Cadillac should be. It needs unparalleled luxury appointments with performance and styling to match. Cadillac should compete in the major segments because when they shame the Germans in their own game, people will notice. I guarantee. Not everybody wants a 1970's landbarge. Even I don't. They do need a landbarge-ish car, but emphasis on a.

As for SUVs, Americans are known for their SUVs as well as their landbarges. It's perhaps the only thing foreign makes can't beat us at. Size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,260 Posts
:)

I'm sure Buick was tacky at various points in time, too. But I'm not too tied to automotive history, the future attracts me. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like Buick is going there the way I once hoped.

My take has always been that "true luxury" is vulgar and tacky in all forms. Now I'm realizing its probably "luxury I can't reasonably ever attain", that I whitewash luxury I can attain into the category "premium", and that others probably think I fit what I rail against. Upper-middle-class class warfare sandwich yeah. Time to reevaluate myself.

I'll give that Cadillac in the 60's is probably not vulgar. Maybe.

Back up a few posts, I absolutely love the various forms of angst that SUVs and crossovers generate.
I meant the new concept. I, too, love the future of the automotive industry. It pains me to agree with you on Buick... :(

I'd agree with you on the 60's Cadillacs, and given that I know what you mean now, I agree. If you look objectively at true luxury, it is vulgar and tacky. However, I think that when you're looking for top tier luxury, it's a different story. For the price, you're probably looking for something that screams ostentatious. It's a matter of what kind of ostentatious suits you best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Updated CUE with sfbreh's suggestions - great suggestions bro! Also some powertrain updates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
Updated CUE quite a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,260 Posts
Updated CUE with sfbreh's suggestions - great suggestions bro! Also some powertrain updates.
Thanks. :)

Updated CUE quite a bit.
I can dig it. I think in Advancing CUE, maybe CUE could also maintain minimal control of the car as Cadillac's response to traffic jam assist?

I think marketing a bunch of features just as CUE would also help with marketing it as such an advanced technology. Take away all the stupid names the Germans use to try to confuse/impress you, and they're basic things. Cadillac definitely needs a Magic Sky Control type of thing, too. Only Cadillac's is colored according to your car's exterior :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,260 Posts
Oh AND, Cadillac should allow keyboards and screens for convenience's sake. They should be projected (from?) the wood. I see it a lot in new TVs, I just don't know the name of it. The buttons are invisible on a brushed metal surface, but when it's powered on they seemingly appear out of nowhere. It's all touch based. The screen, I'm not sure about where it should be..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,134 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 ·
Thanks. :)

I can dig it. I think in Advancing CUE, maybe CUE could also maintain minimal control of the car as Cadillac's response to traffic jam assist?

I think marketing a bunch of features just as CUE would also help with marketing it as such an advanced technology. Take away all the stupid names the Germans use to try to confuse/impress you, and they're basic things. Cadillac definitely needs a Magic Sky Control type of thing, too. Only Cadillac's is colored according to your car's exterior :D
No prob :) Your suggestions were great.

So for the 2 others, they're both good calls. But why not have the glass roof, in which the tint is controlled through the occupants. Likewise, why not have this controlled tint be for the windows, too, on upper-end vehicles? So say in the Ciel, you decide you want the windows tinted darker (or lighter... by a lot or a little)? You can, by voice command or touch screen, adjust it. Maybe on a 0-100 scale (100 being darkest), with 50 being the standard tint, you can call out to CUE "I would like the windows tinted a little darker", or "Please set window tint at 35"

I know the "actual" scale is lower, where 15% tint means 15% light allowed through. But for the less car-savvy who don't know that, logically to them higher would make more sense I'd think. Maybe also have an option to switch it to either scale.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top